Biological Ali:It would seem that the Protocol itself doesn't explicitly make this allowance, but many signatories to it separately reserve the right to respond in kind if attacked first. So it would seem that it's a subjective thing, and not some hard-coded loophole that applies regardless of context.

To be fair most of the international protocols have never been hard-coded and were overlooked when it was politically expedient.

Biological Ali:Sure, but there's no law that says they can't prioritize which enemies the US can deal with at which times (even if we grant for the sake of argument that the US has some intelligence on al-Qaeda in Syria that it isn't acting on). Under the interpretation you seem to be going with, any attack that didn't involve in the US hitting all mutually opposed enemies at the same time with equal force would result in them illegally "helping" the one that suffered the least damage within a given time frame. That just isn't anywhere near how these principles are actually understood and applied.

My understanding of the current situation is that at the moment the rebels are losing and that any military actions by us would mainly serve to tip that balance in their favor. Knowing that there is a substantial AQ element in Syria amongst the rebels according to our own state departments reports and advisories I don't see how in good conscious we can do something that any fool can see would help them.

Obama's Reptiloid Master:DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.

And yet the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this either.

Well, Britain doesn't, but Saudi Arabia does. Who knows where others fall along that spectrum?

But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.

Or...

"Maybe my parents would still be alive if the US hadn't started bombing shiat here..."

Only one of these scenarios is backed up by reality and history. Can you pick which one?

"Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike."

So instead of deterrence as Kerry claims, they'll get new toys PLUS a missile shield to give them even less of a reason to be deterred by airstrikes. Nice work Kerry. Thanks Obama.

super_grass:CynicalLA: GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.

Fart_Machine:Fair enough. So in other words it's generally useless even if the initial Rebel attack is never confirmed.

More or less where civil wars are concerned. However if the reports that they did use them first are to be believed then it's just another nail in the coffin as to we shouldn't get involved.

Biological Ali:And again, I'd like to reiterate that not even the people accusing the rebels of carrying out the Aleppo incident (which include Syria and Russia) are making the "respond in kind" argument, likely because they know it's a non-starter.

Not mentioning it versus it not entering into their calculus are two different things.

CynicalLA:super_grass: CynicalLA: GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.

So you can completely wipe out as many people as you want. As long as you don't use chemical weapons. Still sounds ridiculous.

They're trying to sell drones and precision strikes as something that would beat down Assad's forces and destroy the chemical weapons with a minimum of collateral damage. So the "sacrifice" made by these civilians are worth it.

Soup4Bonnie:I don't know the right thing to do. I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.

It's a good thing Obama got international consensus, because he's such a citizen of the world that gets along with everyone, about what the plan of action would be if chemical weapons were used in Syria. I'm glad he did the right thing so we're not totally isolated on the issue and completely at odds with a major foreign power.

Radioactive Ass:Not mentioning it versus it not entering into their calculus are two different things.

An attack is imminent and just about all of the relevant parties, including them, are resigned to the reality that whoever carried out this attack is very likely going to get hit, regardless of what went on first. This is why, in the face of mounting evidence that they did do it, the Syrian regime is still grasping at straws by pretending they didn't, rather than even thinking aloud about this novel "respond in kind" argument.

GoldSpider:Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do. I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.

That faith couldn't possibly be based on anything he's said in the last two weeks.

Yeah, right?I have no faith in this president. Zero. Zip. Nada.Just the fact that's he's coming out of the gate all war-mongerly just confirms my worst fears of the man.But, but ... The Lilly Ledbetter Act!What a crock of poop.

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

Biological Ali:machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before

Biological Ali:An attack is imminent and just about all of the relevant parties, including them, are resigned to the reality that whoever carried out this attack is very likely going to get hit, regardless of what went on first. This is why, in the face of mounting evidence that they did do it, the Syrian regime is still grasping at straws by pretending they didn't, rather than even thinking aloud about this novel "respond in kind" argument.

What "Mounting evidence"? Has the UN report been released? The evidence we have saying that it was Assad comes from the very same people who said that Saddam was running an active WMD program. Lets not forget that that "Intelligence" was used by two very different presidents, albeit in different ways. I've said this before, it's my opinion that Bush didn't knowingly lie but that he relied on intelligence information and assessments that were bad. Just like Clinton did. The main difference between the two was that Clinton treated terrorism more as a law issue (see how he responded to the USS Cole attack for a very good example of this) while Bush, after 9/11, treated it as an act of war issue.

machoprogrammer:Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before

Because chemical weapons kill the people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

It's the same reasoning that went into the international ban of the neutron bomb.

HotIgneous Intruder:GoldSpider: Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do. I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.

That faith couldn't possibly be based on anything he's said in the last two weeks.

Yeah, right?I have no faith in this president. Zero. Zip. Nada.Just the fact that's he's coming out of the gate all war-mongerly just confirms my worst fears of the man.But, but ... The Lilly Ledbetter Act!What a crock of poop.

Stooge, stooge, stooge. Just like the Bushes.

Well, at least the odds of him whipping off his cowboy hat and screaming yeeeeehhaaawwwwwww just after he orders the drones to double tap some first responders are pretty low.

udhq:machoprogrammer: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before

Because chemical weapons kill the people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

It's the same reasoning that went into the international ban of the neutron bomb.

The UN investigation doesn't have any mandate to say who is responsible for the attack, so any references about how it hasn't been released yet are a red herring. The most the report will do is confirm that an attack did indeed place (which everybody already knows), and corroborate a few details being cited by the several countries that have already concluded that Assad was responsible.

The UK, the US, France and Germany (in roughly that order) have all concluded separately that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. Nobody (not even China or Russia) have made any serious allegations that anybody else was responsible, they're just weakly questioning the degree of certainty. It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist" - not that it's all that surprising for them to be saying this, given that their position is based not on genuine skepticism but rather other political concerns.

Biological Ali:The UN investigation doesn't have any mandate to say who is responsible for the attack, so any references about how it hasn't been released yet are a red herring. The most the report will do is confirm that an attack did indeed place (which everybody already knows), and corroborate a few details being cited by the several countries that have already concluded that Assad was responsible.

The UK, the US, France and Germany (in roughly that order) have all concluded separately that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. Nobody (not even China or Russia) have made any serious allegations that anybody else was responsible, they're just weakly questioning the degree of certainty. It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist" - not that it's all that surprising for them to be saying this, given that their position is based not on genuine skepticism but rather other political concerns.

The UN report will at a minimum tell us the components of the chemicals used. That will be a pretty good indicator of who manufactured it at a minimum. Right now we don't even know that at the moment.

As to taking account of other nations assessments go they also thought that WMD was present in Iraq. Intel can just be wrong sometimes. No malice or incompetence required, just good people coming to the wrong conclusions due to bad assumptions on their part.

Biological Ali:It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist"

I would bet a beer that the NRO has real-time video of the attack, plus still pictures, and the NSA has recordings of the battlefield command and control orders.That's not the same as arguing about the existence of God.

Only because I haven't seen it said yet (apologies if I missed the comment), here's my $0.02:

Since his first term, everything President Obama has done has been calculated. Healthcare, LGBT rights, and even marijuana policies, have been given to the people and the courts to decide. Attacking Syria is no different.

President Obama is playing the GOP like a fiddle.

The GOP, the supposed (and self-anointed) military spine of the nation, was humiliated by a Democratic president killing bin Laden.

Now? The same GOP that campaigned on "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and "Benghazi (jazz hands)," is opposing bombing of brown Muslim people because of ... Obama. In reality, the GOP wants to bomb Syria into a crater, but Obama is now leaving it to Congress ...as the GOP has asked.

End game:* Democrats split on Syria.. but everyone expected that anyway, and,* GOP votes against Obama in the house, and filibusters the Senate, because.... Obama. However, this also alienates the GOP's redneck warmonger support.

GoldSpider:HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.

To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.

Wake Up Sheeple:IMHO, Obama's presidency has been about having situations come to a final resolution, not about breaking more vases.

That's pretty wacky.But perhaps a bit optimistic for my taste.I'm afraid Obama has been in over his head since the beginning. Congress walks on him regularly.He's disappointed his left base. His attorney general has prosecuted more whistleblowers than the past three prezzies combined. Drone killings. Gitmo is indefinite. Now this Syria derangement with Kerry leading the rhythm section on the war drums. It's madness.

Now Putin is poking at him with a sharp stick and there's no telling what he'll do.He seems to be implying that he'll bomb without congress' consent because, you know, he's the decider.Bombing Syria will be political suicide because the American people are farking sick of permawar and don't care about his tiny ballsack issues. Putin wants control of Syria to prevent an Arab pipeline and so far, Putin has been snubbing and playing Obama like a carp.

Obama is in check and unless he cowboys up, he's going to be a laughing stock at home and abroad. That's the biggest reason he'll do some cruise missiles -- to save face and Putin will probably be OK with that. Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and Obama is on notice. King Obama is in check between Queen Obama and Bishop Bandar. Assad is a pawn in this.

Radioactive Ass:GoldSpider: HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.

To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.

They really misnamed it. Rather then Enhanced Radiation bomb, which got everyone in a tizzy, they should have named it the Reduced Blast bomb and let everyone cheer its improvement.

Wake Up Sheeple:In the off-chance that Congress authorizes a strike, Obama once again comes out as a strong military leader, AND a rational man of the people.

And what about if he doesn't get approval and he decides to strike anyway? He hasn't yet completely backed off of his declaration that he already has the authority to do so even when asked. I would hope that he will follow the will of congress but while the Senate may sign off on it (as it appears right now that they will) the House is an entirely different animal. All of the anecdotal evidence is that the Representatives are getting calls from their constituents overwhelmingly against a yes vote. And when I say overwhelmingly I mean somewhere in the range of 95 out of 100 calls are against. Let's not forget that they are all up for re-election and anyone who votes against a huge amount of their constituents known wishes is just asking to be sent home next November. Getting 217 of them to vote yes may be a stretch.

netcentric:The US would be mindless to launch any strikes. It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.We will get hit eventually, if we bomb them.

You're right, but that's western thinking. We give and receive threats all the time, talking big is part of our culture. In those cultures, such an explicit threat counts almost as much as the action itself. Our overseas assets are already more at risk because of this monumental blunder.

USP .45:netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes. It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.We will get hit eventually, if we bomb them.

You're right, but that's western thinking. We give and receive threats all the time, talking big is part of our culture. In those cultures, such an explicit threat counts almost as much as the action itself. Our overseas assets are already more at risk because of this monumental blunder.

Radioactive Ass:GoldSpider: HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.

To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.

CynicalLA:cirrhosis_and_halitosis: netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes. It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.We will get hit eventually, if we bomb them.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.

One other point. Americans and a lot of other first world nation have benefited from this policy. Supporting oppressive regimes has kept prices low and that's something most Americans don't acknowledge.

CynicalLA:cirrhosis_and_halitosis: US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.

Realpolitik is the perfect description, the US stopped using carrots (excepts for the Saudis) a long time ago and found the biggest stick.

The US has long coveted Syria, GW even gave them an honorary mention in his Axis of Evil. Unfortunately it looks like the White House propaganda campaign is taking hold, one poll has public support up to 30%. Putin has a few surprises for Obama if he is stupid enough to carry through.

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.

I still have a feeling he isn't really trying because he is just trolling the GOP because now they are the ones in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. We won't find out for sure until they actually vote on it.